Why should a hamburger flipper make the same as a highly skilled worker???

[JoeB131]

The "flaws" of capitalism haven't included gulags, mass murder or starvation. In fact, all the flaws are the result of creeps like you trying to push it towards socialism.

No, they included the genocide of Native Americans, Native Australians, the slave trade that killed millions, all the millions of children who were forced into labor in the 19th century, the degredation of the environment.

 

[JoeB131]

Marx believed that all workers would one day rise up against the system in revolution. This never happened, and so communism was forced upon people instead of chosen by them. Sheer power ruled half of the post WWII Europe and not by people choice. Bolshevik way didn't work, now we have menshevik pushing for it slowly, thru legislation.

Technically, Marx expected communism to happen in the Industrialized world. Russia and most of the third world countries he expected to get communism imposed by the European powers.

But here was the thing. The main reason why the middle class advanced past the squalor of the early 20th century was that a lot of smart leaders in the West realized that what happened in Russia would happen everywhere else unless they pushed for decent wages and decent working conditions.

So really, the reason why we didn't have a Marxist revolution was because we had a progressive movement by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR>

 

[JoeB131]

Communism never came peacefully, it was always forced on people. In 1964 Chile had communist revolution, right? You can call them socialists, and thats fine... remember, USSR was socialist too.

No, Chile had a democratic election, and they nationalized the mines and other industries- then largely owned by American interests.

Now, to be fair, Allende really did make a mess of the economy. He ignored his own congress, and antagonized the US.

That still is no excuse for the coup against him.

 

[JoeB131]

Chile was fighting a civil war against foreign communists infiltrators and their supporters. These communists were trying to convert Chile into a Soviet client state. During a civil war, people get killed, you know, as in the American Civil war where Lincoln killed 850,000 Americans. Pinochet's methods were positively benign compared to Abraham Lincoln's.

Are you really profoundly ignorant of what occurred in Chile in the 1970's?

This was a coup against a democratically elected government. Thousands of civilians were executed for being on the wrong side.

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery and child labor existed for thousands of years before capitalism. What capitalism "shifts" to third world countries is good paying jobs where the locals can make far more than they could working for any domestic employer. Dictators have also been around since time immemorial, but a capitalist dictator is 1000 times better than a communist dictator. The people of Cuba were far better off under Batiste than they have been under Castro.

They why did the Cuban people overthrow Batista if they were so well off? Why haven't they overthrown Castro after 55 years?

 

[Dragonlady]

The "flaws" of capitalism haven't included gulags, mass murder or starvation. In fact, all the flaws are the result of creeps like you trying to push it towards socialism.

Yeah they have. Chile in the 1970's: they rounded up all of the lawyers, university professors and other leftists, took them to a soccer stadium and shot them. Thousands of people were killed in the centre of the capital.

That's a communist myth. You're propagating communist propaganda. That's not surprising since you're obviously a communist.

In Argentina people were "disappeared". They would be picked up off the streets in unmarked cars and never seen again. Argentines still hate Ford, who supplied the cars to the regime. It's estimated that 30,000 people were murdered.

Chile was fighting a civil war against foreign communists infiltrators and their supporters. These communists were trying to convert Chile into a Soviet client state. During a civil war, people get killed, you know, as in the American Civil war where Lincoln killed 850,000 Americans. Pinochet's methods were positively benign compared to Abraham Lincoln's.

Chile was not fighting any civil war. The country was a mess. Inflation was close to 150. There were numerous strikes, but no war. Nixon imposed sanctions against the leftist Allende government. The CIA and the Nixon government pushed the idea that communists were going to take over to justify their backing of a military coup to overthrow a democratically elected government. Just like non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" we're used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

In reality, starting in 1969 Allende nationalized the copper industry in Chile, which was owned by US corporations. This is the real basis for US involvement in Chile's domestic affairs. Ironically, Pinochet held onto the copper mines after he took over much to Nixon's chagrin.

The Nixon government produced "proof" that Allende was aligning with the Soviets. Congress went batshit on him for the CIA's involvement in the coup.

Of course the population voted in favour of the constitution. Pinochet murdered the opposition. 40,000 to 50,000 arrests is hardly using "restraint" in dealing with the opposition. and killed, or tortured, thousands more fled the country.

Pinochet was removed from power in 1988 by which time 48% of the population lived in dire poverty. A leftist government was elected with a stated goal of poverty reduction. They started with a 17% increase in the minimum wage, a 200% increase in social spending, a cancellation of Pinochet's tax cuts, and a 3% of GDP tax increase. The resultant economic growth lifted Chileans out of poverty.

I'm no communist. Not even close. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, which is why I strongly oppose the notion that taxpayers subsidize wages for large profitable multi nationals.

What I don't do is to swallow every story promulgated by the CIA to justify their political interference.

 

[JoeB131]

Dragonlady, you're my hero!

 

[Dragonlady]

It's hard to get facts into your thick head. Under Pinochet, Chile was controlled by military. You keep talking about capitalism and there wasn't. It was necessity to prevent communist from taking power. It happened in Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru... and they all pretty much ended up military rule and returned to democracy and constitutional republics.

Just because the military was in control of the government doesn't mean that the country wasn't capitalist. In fact Chile under Pinochet was the closest any government has ever come to pure capitalism is history, and it was an abject failure. It was only after the economic reforms instituted after Pinochet's removal from power, which returned Chile to a social democracy, that the country became the great economic success it is today.

Milton Friedman himself consulted with Pinochet on the economic reforms, although he was very disappointed that Pinochet didn't sell off the copper mines. His economic advisers were called "The Chicago Boys". The economic failure of Pinochet's reforms is proof that an unrestrained free market won't work.

Sadly the Republicans are still trying to implement Friedman's economic principles in the US which has lead to the current mess.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, you did endorse the Bolsheviks. You also endorsed the murder of an entire family.

What a fucking prick.

The incompetence of the Romanovs killed MILLIONS of Russians in World War I. (and for that matter, a lot of other people because Russia escalated a war between Serbia and Austria into a world war.)

No great loss, there.

If that's the case, then King George the 5th and his entire family deserved to be slaughtered. So did Woodrow Wilson, for that matter.

So Russia is not responsible for starting WW I? That's certainly a novel theory.

 

[bripat9643]

It's hard to get facts into your thick head. Under Pinochet, Chile was controlled by military. You keep talking about capitalism and there wasn't. It was necessity to prevent communist from taking power. It happened in Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru... and they all pretty much ended up military rule and returned to democracy and constitutional republics.

Just because the military was in control of the government doesn't mean that the country wasn't capitalist. In fact Chile under Pinochet was the closest any government has ever come to pure capitalism is history, and it was an abject failure. It was only after the economic reforms instituted after Pinochet's removal from power, which returned Chile to a social democracy, that the country became the great economic success it is today.

Again, you're just making stuff up. Chile was a thriving economic success while Pinochet was still president, and the so-called "economic reforms" you refer to are almost non-existent. What where they?

Milton Friedman himself consulted with Pinochet on the economic reforms, although he was very disappointed that Pinochet didn't sell off the copper mines. His economic advisers were called "The Chicago Boys". The economic failure of Pinochet's reforms is proof that an unrestrained free market won't work.

The only problem with that claim is that Pinochet's economic reforms were a huge success. You don't know the slightest thing about the history of Chile. You're a thoroughly brainwashed commie drone.

Sadly the Republicans are still trying to implement Friedman's economic principles in the US which has lead to the current mess.

Hmmm, no. Liberal Keynesianism is what led to the current mess.

 

[bripat9643]

The "flaws" of capitalism haven't included gulags, mass murder or starvation. In fact, all the flaws are the result of creeps like you trying to push it towards socialism.

No, they included the genocide of Native Americans, Native Australians, the slave trade that killed millions, all the millions of children who were forced into labor in the 19th century, the degredation of the environment.

Sorry, but all those claims are obviously false. The slave trade is older than civilization itself. The Spanish Empire killed far more natives than the British or Americans ever dreamed of, and that certainly wasn't capitalist. The worst degradation of the environment has been in socialist countries like the Soviet Union, Poland and China.

The problem with socialists is that they are totally ignorant of the results of the policies they support.

 

[JoeB131]

If that's the case, then King George the 5th and his entire family deserved to be slaughtered. So did Woodrow Wilson, for that matter.

So Russia is not responsible for starting WW I? That's certainly a novel theory.

Well, no, not really. George V was a figurehead, and Woodrow was reacting to specific threats against the US.

Do you even think these things through?

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, but all those claims are obviously false. The slave trade is older than civilization itself. The Spanish Empire killed far more natives than the British or Americans ever dreamed of, and that certainly wasn't capitalist.

ah, the 'No True Scotsman Fallacy".

I thought only Christians used that.

 

[bripat9643]

Marx believed that all workers would one day rise up against the system in revolution. This never happened, and so communism was forced upon people instead of chosen by them. Sheer power ruled half of the post WWII Europe and not by people choice. Bolshevik way didn't work, now we have menshevik pushing for it slowly, thru legislation.

Technically, Marx expected communism to happen in the Industrialized world. Russia and most of the third world countries he expected to get communism imposed by the European powers.

But here was the thing. The main reason why the middle class advanced past the squalor of the early 20th century was that a lot of smart leaders in the West realized that what happened in Russia would happen everywhere else unless they pushed for decent wages and decent working conditions.

So really, the reason why we didn't have a Marxist revolution was because we had a progressive movement by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR>

You're spouting communist propaganda. The West was already vastly more wealthy than the rest of the world at the time of the Russian revolution. It remained wealthier than the Soviet Union for as long as it existed.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but all those claims are obviously false. The slave trade is older than civilization itself. The Spanish Empire killed far more natives than the British or Americans ever dreamed of, and that certainly wasn't capitalist.

ah, the 'No True Scotsman Fallacy".

I thought only Christians used that.

I have no idea what the "no true Scotsman theory" is.

 

[JoeB131]

You're just spouting more communist propaganda. The West was already vastly more wealthy than the rest of the world at the time of the Russian revolution. It remained wealthier than the Soviet Union for as long as it existed.

Yes, it was. Because it had spent most of the 16th through 19th centuries looting the rest of the world.

That's not something to be proud of. And we should be worried that the world's wealth is shifting back to non-white peoples....

 

[JoeB131]

I have no idea what the "no true Scotsman theory" is.

Why am I not surprised.

Okay, time to education you. The No True Scotsman fallacy works like this.

"No True Scotsman would put sugar on his Haggis".

"I know McConnell puts sugar on his Haggis everyday."

"McConnell is no true Scotsman, then."

You excuse the worst abuses of a group by saying the worst abusers weren't truly members of your group.

But the Spanish Empire went to the Americas for a reason. Profit. And it was Capitalism in its truest form. Investors put up money hoping for a return. At first, gold, but when all the gold had been looted, then other resources.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's hard to get facts into your thick head. Under Pinochet, Chile was controlled by military. You keep talking about capitalism and there wasn't. It was necessity to prevent communist from taking power. It happened in Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru... and they all pretty much ended up military rule and returned to democracy and constitutional republics.

Just because the military was in control of the government doesn't mean that the country wasn't capitalist. In fact Chile under Pinochet was the closest any government has ever come to pure capitalism is history, and it was an abject failure. It was only after the economic reforms instituted after Pinochet's removal from power, which returned Chile to a social democracy, that the country became the great economic success it is today.

Again, you're just making stuff up. Chile was a thriving economic success while Pinochet was still president, and the so-called "economic reforms" you refer to are almost non-existent. What where they?

Milton Friedman himself consulted with Pinochet on the economic reforms, although he was very disappointed that Pinochet didn't sell off the copper mines. His economic advisers were called "The Chicago Boys". The economic failure of Pinochet's reforms is proof that an unrestrained free market won't work.

The only problem with that claim is that Pinochet's economic reforms were a huge success. You don't know the slightest thing about the history of Chile. You're a thoroughly brainwashed commie drone.

Sadly the Republicans are still trying to implement Friedman's economic principles in the US which has lead to the current mess.

Hmmm, no. Liberal Keynesianism is what led to the current mess.

I suggest you read the facts. Chile was a capitalists dream under Pinochet and it resulted in half of the population living in third world poverty. It wasn't until left wing reforms which restored the social safety net that Chile's economy became successful.

While the wealthy and business people considered the reforms a success, the general population had an entirely different view.

Try these links:

Chile the laboratory test

Miracle of Chile - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Free Market Fundamentalism Neoliberalism Friedman and the Chilean Miracle

 

[bripat9643]

I have no idea what the "no true Scotsman theory" is.

Why am I not surprised.

Okay, time to education you. The No True Scotsman fallacy works like this.

"No True Scotsman would put sugar on his Haggis".

"I know McConnell puts sugar on his Haggis everyday."

"McConnell is no true Scotsman, then."

You excuse the worst abuses of a group by saying the worst abusers weren't truly members of your group.

But the Spanish Empire went to the Americas for a reason. Profit. And it was Capitalism in its truest form. Investors put up money hoping for a return. At first, gold, but when all the gold had been looted, then other resources.

That's not an example of your so-called "fallacy." You claimed Capitalism is solely responsible for the genocide of native peoples. That clearly isn't the case. The fact that the Spanish did it for money doesn't make it capitalism. That's like saying capitalism existed in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia. People have been lusting after gold for 10,000 years.

 

[bripat9643]

It's hard to get facts into your thick head. Under Pinochet, Chile was controlled by military. You keep talking about capitalism and there wasn't. It was necessity to prevent communist from taking power. It happened in Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru... and they all pretty much ended up military rule and returned to democracy and constitutional republics.

Just because the military was in control of the government doesn't mean that the country wasn't capitalist. In fact Chile under Pinochet was the closest any government has ever come to pure capitalism is history, and it was an abject failure. It was only after the economic reforms instituted after Pinochet's removal from power, which returned Chile to a social democracy, that the country became the great economic success it is today.

Again, you're just making stuff up. Chile was a thriving economic success while Pinochet was still president, and the so-called "economic reforms" you refer to are almost non-existent. What where they?

Milton Friedman himself consulted with Pinochet on the economic reforms, although he was very disappointed that Pinochet didn't sell off the copper mines. His economic advisers were called "The Chicago Boys". The economic failure of Pinochet's reforms is proof that an unrestrained free market won't work.

The only problem with that claim is that Pinochet's economic reforms were a huge success. You don't know the slightest thing about the history of Chile. You're a thoroughly brainwashed commie drone.

Sadly the Republicans are still trying to implement Friedman's economic principles in the US which has lead to the current mess.

Hmmm, no. Liberal Keynesianism is what led to the current mess.

I suggest you read the facts. Chile was a capitalists dream under Pinochet and it resulted in half of the population living in third world poverty. It wasn't until left wing reforms which restored the social safety net that Chile's economy became successful.

Hmmm, no. Under Allende the economy was swirling down the toilet. Under Pinochet it recovered and has been booming ever since. Chile is the wealthiest country in Latin America and it achieved that status under Pinochet. That's why commies like you hate him so much. He proves every claim commies make about capitalism is dead wrong.